Fairfield board denies veteran’s appeal over property tax exemption; cites statute requiring 100% VA rating

The Fairfield Board of Assessment Appeals voted 0-4-1 on April 28, 2025, to deny an appeal from a local veteran, Mr. Retco, who sought a dwelling exemption under the state’s new veterans’ property tax law (Title 12, Section 83 of the Connecticut General Statutes) after the assessor’s office concluded his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) award letter showed a combined service‑connected evaluation below 100 percent.

The matter matters because the Legislature revised the statute and related guidance this year to limit the exemption to veterans with a 100 percent service‑connected disability valuation as determined by the VA (participants in the meeting referred to House Bill 7067 passed March 3, 2025). Fairfield staff told the board the change and subsequent interpretation affected several accounts and reopened the grand list for appeals this tax year.

Board members and staff reviewed the appellant’s documents during a special hearing. Town staff reported that five local accounts presented similar situations in which award letters described a veteran as “permanently and totally disabled” for benefits purposes even though the VA’s combined service‑connected evaluation on the letter was less than 100 percent. Staff said two of those accounts remained on an earlier exemption because switching them to the new statute would have reduced their benefit; three accounts (including Mr. Retco’s) were adjusted to the older $42,000 exemption level pending appeal.

According to information presented to the board, Mr. Retco’s property records list the improvement (the house and attached structures) with an appraised improvement value of $293,000 and an assessed improvement value of $205,100; the board and staff described a $42,000 veteran exemption figure used under the older benefit scale for certain disability tiers. Board members clarified that the exemption at issue covers improvements (dwelling and associated structures), not land, consistent with staff interpretation.

Board discussion focused on two points: whether the statute and state guidance required a 100 percent VA evaluation to qualify, and whether local officials had discretion to treat VA award letters that describe a veteran as “permanently and totally disabled” as meeting the statute even when the combined evaluation shown is below 100 percent. Staff and members said the Legislature and the Governor issued clarifying guidance and an emergency change that, in their view, required towns to limit the new exemption to veterans with a 100 percent VA evaluation. Staff also said the state sent interpretation letters before the emergency change clarifying legislators’ intent.

The board also heard that the town has roughly 40–50 accounts that qualify for veteran benefits under prior rules, and only a small subset—five accounts—were affected by the recent statutory clarification. Members noted the fiscal impact could be substantial in communities with large veteran populations, and that other Connecticut towns had recorded higher budget impacts than originally estimated when the law was enacted.

After discussion, a motion to grant the exemption to Mr. Retco under Title 12, Section 83 was offered and put to a roll-call-style vote at the meeting; the motion failed by vote tally (yes: 0; no: 4; abstain: 1). The board recorded the outcome as a denial of the appeal. Board members and staff advised Mr. Retco that, because the VA determines the official evaluation, the practical remedy would be for him to seek clarification or correction from the Department of Veterans Affairs and, if he obtains documentation showing a 100 percent evaluation, to return to the board with that evidence.

The hearing closed after completion of the vote; the board then adjourned the special meeting.